Self-Defence Laws in Canada: Sections 34 and 35 Explained

In Canada, self-defence is governed by Criminal Code section 34, which excuses a person only when their belief in the need for force is reasonable and their response is reasonable in the circumstances, with no automatic right to use force against an intruder.

The 2013 rewrite: one section instead of nine

For decades, Canada's self-defence law was spread across sections 34 through 42 of the Criminal Code, a patchwork that dated to 1892 and had grown contradictory and difficult to apply. Courts and lawyers regularly complained that the old provisions were nearly impossible to explain to a jury.

Parliament replaced the entire patchwork with the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, which came into force on March 11, 2013. It created a single defence-of-person provision at section 34 and a single defence-of-property provision at section 35 of the Criminal Code. The same Act also amended the citizen's arrest power in section 494.

The goal was to make the law simpler and more predictable, not to expand anyone's right to use force. The core question under the new law, as under the old one, is still whether the person's belief and response were reasonable.

The section 34 test for defence of a person

Section 34(1) sets out a three-part test. A person is not guilty of an offence committed in self-defence if all three conditions are met.

1. Reasonable belief. The person reasonably believes that force, or a threat of force, is being used against them or against another person.
2. Purpose. The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves, or the other person, from that force or threat.
3. Reasonable in the circumstances. The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

All three elements must be satisfied. A genuine but unreasonable belief that force was being used fails the first element. An act done for revenge rather than protection fails the second. And even a response to a real threat can fail the third element if it goes further than the situation called for.

The section 34(2) factors

Whether an act was "reasonable in the circumstances" is not left to guesswork. Section 34(2) directs the court to consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties, and the act, including:

• The nature of the force or threat.
• The extent to which the use of force was imminent, and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force.
• The person's role in the incident.
• Whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon.
• The size, age, gender, and physical capabilities of the parties.
• The nature, duration, and history of any relationship between the parties, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat.
• Any history of interaction or communication between the parties.
• The nature and proportionality of the person's response to the use or threat of force.
• Whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

No single factor is decisive. A court weighs the full picture, which is why two cases with similar facts can come out differently depending on the relationship between the parties, whether a weapon was involved, or whether the person had a safer option available.

No stand your ground, no castle doctrine

This is the point of law readers most often get wrong, usually because of American media and American statutes. Canada has no "stand your ground" law. No Criminal Code provision removes the reasonableness requirement once a person is lawfully somewhere. Canada also has no castle doctrine. Being in your own home does not, by itself, authorize deadly force against an intruder.

The "other means available" language in section 34(2)(b) is a factor, not a strict legal duty to retreat. A person is not required to run away before defending themselves, and a court can find that retreat was not realistic or safe. But the availability of a safer option is something the court is directed to weigh, and it can undercut a claim that a forceful response was reasonable when a much less drastic option was obviously available.

Proportionality and reasonableness govern every self-defence case in Canada, whether the incident happens on the street, in a business, or inside a person's own home. There is no automatic legal shortcut that bypasses that analysis.

Section 35: defence of property

Section 35 sets out a separate, narrower test for protecting property. A person is not guilty of an offence if:

• They believe on reasonable grounds that they are in peaceable possession of the property, or are lawfully assisting someone they reasonably believe is in peaceable possession of it.
• They believe on reasonable grounds that another person is about to enter, is entering, or has entered the property without being entitled to, or is about to take, is taking, or has taken property from it, or is about to damage, or begin or continue to damage, the property.
• The act committed is for the purpose of preventing the other person from entering, or removing them from the property, or preventing the other person from taking, damaging, or continuing to damage the property, or is for the purpose of taking the property back from that person.
• The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Section 35(2) and 35(3) limit the defence further. It does not apply if the person defending the property does not have a claim of right to it and the other person is entitled to possession, or if the other person is doing something they are legally required or authorized to do, such as a bailiff enforcing a court order.

Property force is not person force

The most important practical point is that defending property does not justify the same force as defending a person. A homeowner who finds someone stealing from a shed has options under section 35, such as ordering the person off the property or physically removing them using reasonable, non-lethal means. Escalating to serious bodily harm or lethal force to stop a property offence, where no threat to a person has developed, is very unlikely to be found reasonable under either section 34 or section 35. The moment force is used against a person rather than merely to protect property, section 34's higher-stakes analysis, including the imminence and proportionality factors, comes into play.

Self-defence is a defence, not immunity from charges

Claiming self-defence does not prevent someone from being arrested or charged. Self-defence is an affirmative defence raised at trial. Police who respond to a violent incident will typically investigate all parties involved, and a prosecutor may still lay charges if the evidence does not clearly show a justified act.

Before a jury or judge can weigh the section 34 factors, there must be an air of reality to the claim: some evidence in the case, if believed, upon which a properly instructed jury could conclude the defence applies. If that evidentiary threshold is met, the Crown then bears the burden of disproving self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a meaningfully different posture from a law that would prevent a charge from being laid in the first place, which is one reason a person who acted in genuine self-defence can still face the stress, cost, and delay of a criminal trial.

Related self-help doctrines to understand

Self-defence sits alongside two related but distinct concepts. A citizen's arrest under section 494 lets a property owner detain someone found committing an offence, but it is a narrow and legally risky power of its own, separate from the right to use defensive force. Carrying or using a weapon, including a knife, in a self-defence scenario raises its own set of Criminal Code rules that operate independently of whether the underlying use of force was justified.

For related Canadian criminal law topics, see citizen's arrest in Canada, knife and weapons laws in Canada, and the Canada criminal law hub.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Canadian self-defence law and is not legal advice. If you are involved in an incident where force was used, consult a criminal defence lawyer licensed in your province.